Literature DB >> 27587594

Confidence and coverage for Bland-Altman limits of agreement and their approximate confidence intervals.

Andrew Carkeet1, Yee Teng Goh1.   

Abstract

Bland and Altman described approximate methods in 1986 and 1999 for calculating confidence limits for their 95% limits of agreement, approximations which assume large subject numbers. In this paper, these approximations are compared with exact confidence intervals calculated using two-sided tolerance intervals for a normal distribution. The approximations are compared in terms of the tolerance factors themselves but also in terms of the exact confidence limits and the exact limits of agreement coverage corresponding to the approximate confidence interval methods. Using similar methods the 50th percentile of the tolerance interval are compared with the k values of 1.96 and 2, which Bland and Altman used to define limits of agreements (i.e. [Formula: see text]+/- 1.96Sd and [Formula: see text]+/- 2Sd). For limits of agreement outer confidence intervals, Bland and Altman's approximations are too permissive for sample sizes <40 (1999 approximation) and <76 (1986 approximation). For inner confidence limits the approximations are poorer, being permissive for sample sizes of <490 (1986 approximation) and all practical sample sizes (1999 approximation). Exact confidence intervals for 95% limits of agreements, based on two-sided tolerance factors, can be calculated easily based on tables and should be used in preference to the approximate methods, especially for small sample sizes.

Keywords:  Bland–Altman analysis; confidence limits; coverage; limits of agreement; two-sided tolerance factors

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27587594     DOI: 10.1177/0962280216665419

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  12 in total

1.  Development and Validation of PREDICT-DM: A New Microsimulation Model to Project and Evaluate Complications and Treatments of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Pooyan Kazemian; Deborah J Wexler; Naomi F Fields; Robert A Parker; Amy Zheng; Rochelle P Walensky
Journal:  Diabetes Technol Ther       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 6.118

2.  Application of Mixed Effects Limits of Agreement in the Presence of Multiple Sources of Variability: Exemplar from the Comparison of Several Devices to Measure Respiratory Rate in COPD Patients.

Authors:  Richard A Parker; Christopher J Weir; Noah Rubio; Roberto Rabinovich; Hilary Pinnock; Janet Hanley; Lucy McCloughan; Ellen M Drost; Leandro C Mantoani; William MacNee; Brian McKinstry
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  The appropriateness of Bland-Altman's approximate confidence intervals for limits of agreement.

Authors:  Gwowen Shieh
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 4.  Reporting Standards for a Bland-Altman Agreement Analysis: A Review of Methodological Reviews.

Authors:  Oke Gerke
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-22

5.  Quantification of tissue volume in the hindlimb of mice using microcomputed tomography images and analysing software.

Authors:  Alexander Wiinholt; Oke Gerke; Farima Dalaei; Amar Bučan; Christoffer Bing Madsen; Jens Ahm Sørensen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Nonparametric Limits of Agreement in Method Comparison Studies: A Simulation Study on Extreme Quantile Estimation.

Authors:  Oke Gerke
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 7.  How Replicates Can Inform Potential Users of a Measurement Procedure about Measurement Error: Basic Concepts and Methods.

Authors:  Werner Vach; Oke Gerke
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-22

8.  Reliability of hip muscle strength measured in principal and intermediate planes of movement.

Authors:  Basilio A M Goncalves; David J Saxby; Adam Kositsky; Rod S Barrett; Laura E Diamond
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 2.984

9.  Concurrent validity and reliability of measuring range of motion during the cervical flexion rotation test with a novel digital goniometer.

Authors:  Kerstin Luedtke; Thomas Schoettker-Königer; Toby Hall; Christine Reimer; Maike Grassold; Petra Hasselhoff-Styhler; Christian Neulinger; Max Obrocki; Philipp Przyhoda; Axel Schäfer
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Assessing Intereye Symmetry and Its Implications for Study Design.

Authors:  Maureen G Maguire
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 4.799

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.